My 2 cents on given US politics, international affairs, issues, and etc

Menu

President Pence?

Since this tied into two other articles that I felt was a bit too open ended, so I’m opting to condense them here.

First, lets reassess what led the 2016 election cycle:
1). Hillary Clinton was not favorable as the election results showed outside 19 of 50 Nation-States in which only 21 States enable their State’s Electoral College (EC) electors to vote against their State’s popular vote.
2). Hillary Clinton popularity outside Urban Economic Centers who benefit from globalization as shown by America2050 research document evaluating ‘Under-Performing’ regions who don’t benefit from globalization by State polls provided a misleading and false lead in the polls.http://www.america2050.org/

4). The WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, and etc published rather underhanded tactics both against Sanders and Sanders’ supporters during the primary and during the election Astroturfing some protests that have been blasted by Progressive Democrats including Hillary Clinton as direct or indirect Russian espionage. Based on an Intelligence Community document who assessed Putin was looking for payback for US interference-influence in Russian elections.

This is paramount to attacking the source/author rather than the content, and it’s the suspicion basis that drives the Trump-Russia collusion-interference utilizing Russian buffer zones who are nations between two rival nations or alliances who benefit from being neutral militarily in particular, which changed with the Ukrainian coup sending the Ukrainian established government fleeing to Crimea and bypassing the Ukrainian-Russian treaty that is the basis of the Sevastopol lease in exchange for repudiating Soviet era debts.

Nowhere in the document does it assess or examine that during times of peace/tranquility that espionage focuses on strategic objectives as maximizing strategic advantages while minimizing strategic disadvantages. Tactical Objectives as sabotaging replenishment rates and Industrial capacities are secondary.

Thus far, the evidence is circumstantial at best, so the real irony is that Anti-Trump and Never Trump led by Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans have Trump for violating Responsibility to Protect (RTP) not once but twice in the Syrian strikes against Assad’s Loyalist Forces.

Instead, the focus is on the Trump-Russia collusion-interference, and pundits have taken a guilty until proven innocent prospective.

The real irony of the entire affair states that if they really wanted to impeach Trump and remove him from office. Trump violated RTP under false pretenses no less, so the entire affair over largely ignoring diplomatic history and globalization violates domestic-foreign emolument clauses. Then again, the rules for thee but not for me that’s common corruption among both Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans given HW Bush, W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Obama violated domestic-foreign emolument clauses and RTP. Guess that means such actions a A-Okay for their supporters, but it also means an Act of War and thus treason assertion of Trump-Russia Collusion-Interference or 25th Amendment are necessary to remove Trump from office.

So, the questions boil down to who benefits and how.

First, Progressive Democrats benefit from a Trump Presidency as it is rallying their base although there remains divisions between Establishment preferred candidates versus Democratic regime change candidates as Sanders’ supporters, which is the basis of Democratic Socialism Sanders’ proposes.

Second, Progressive Republicans have advocated purging TEA Party or otherwise members of TEA Party support that was based on anti-globalization, anti-guilty until proven innocent justice system, and anti-expansionism foreign policies.

Third, Governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and aspiring public-private mergers as Too Big To Fail Banking institutions aren’t going to accept Sanders’ Democratic Socialism or otherwise populist sentiment opposed to promoting an technologically advanced Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economy whose economic model caters to them. This is the same economic model dating to 1492 and prior; the technological advancement does not alter or change its economic nature.

The Justice Department’s look at Russian meddling in the presidential election has turned from a counterintelligence investigation into a criminal probe, leading senators said Thursday as they emerged from a secret briefing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Note, this means it falls under espionage laws that do not need intent to prosecute, and suspicion alone is sufficient probable cause and central to guilty until proven innocent. Hence, articles increasingly following ‘Trump must prove his innocence’. Yeah, good luck with that as historically that turns into ‘sign your confession of guilty for reduced sentence’.

… “People should be fired if they’re disloyal to the President of the United States and leaking. Good administrations set that tone and don’t have to fire people because people have a little bit more discipline and structure,” he said.

Bush also said that Trump needs to “stop tweeting,” and reminded the audience that he predicted that Trump would be a “chaos president,”according to CNN.

“When I ran for office, I said he is a chaos candidate and would be a chaos president,” Bush said. “Unfortunately, so far chaos organizes the presidency right now.”

For the sake of argument, lets say Trump isn’t a con. J Bush is simultaneously advocating actions that will heighten assertions of ‘obstruction of justice’ because firing Federal staff of agencies disloyal of the President is one of the assertions in firing Comey from the FBI. Secondly, Trump’s campaign focused albeit in the case of guilty until proven innocent justice system transition codified by sacrificing rights for security and expanded expansionist foreign policies are historically catalysts of open border policies being poorly articulated, which makes the premise of Trump not being a con a bit problematic will result in a chaotic Presidency that in turn stifles legislative agendas.

Republicans are desperately trying to quarantine the Comey storyline to the Senate Intelligence Committee and work toward their overarching goals of revamping the tax code and health care system. But it may not be as easy to get over as past controversies: Instead of responding to Trump’s tweets or an inflammatory speech, this time the GOP is dealing with Trump’s actions and their rippling repercussions.

Removing a president is a momentous step, so Republicans should pursue 25th Amendment proceedings or impeachment only if they find clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors or an inability to discharge the president’s duties.

Now, lets look at the Trump-Russia collusion as stands objectively. Presently, there’s no concrete evidence, and the evidence is circumstantial at best utilized in justifying preventing Trump administration for filling staff-cabinet positions that as of yet have not been filled. This leads to a chaotic administration due to polarized political ideologies whose resolve is being tested. Now, if you follow the Progressive Top-Down interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, you also should note the argument here is the lack of defining ‘disability’ can also utilize precisely this ‘chaos’ to evoke the 25th Amendment.

Section 4 of the 25thAmendment that allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to send a letter to Congress stating that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This letter would immediately initiate a transfer of power to the Vice President, subject to additional Congressional review…

… Section 4 empowers Congress to form its own body to evaluate the President’s fitness for office, eliminating the need for the Cabinet’s involvement in the process (emphasis ours):

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

But what constitutional constraints are put on this power? Remarkably, there aren’t any. The framers of the 25th Amendment left the provision purposely vague, allowing Congress flexibility to decide on its specifics at a later date.

…As I said, three days and a lifetime. If the G.O.P.’s surrender to candidate Trump made exhortations about Republican politicians’ duty to their country seem like so much pointless verbiage, now President Trump has managed to make exhortation seem unavoidable again.

He has done so, if several days’ worth of entirely credible leaks and revelations are to be believed, by demonstrating in a particularly egregious fashion why the question of “fitness” matters in the first place.

The presidency is not just another office. It has become, for good reasons and bad ones, a seat of semi-monarchical political power, a fixed place on which unimaginable pressures are daily brought to bear, and the final stopping point for decisions that can lead very swiftly to life or death for people the world over.

This brings us back the former link

Just imagining a President Pence for a minute, one thing is clear: overstressed Republicans in Washington could finally put down their fidget spinners.

Ryan, McConnell, McCain, Portman, Graham, Levin, and etc are Progressive Republicans as are Vice President Pence, Priebus, and otherwise by a factor of 5 to 1 staff-cabinet of the administration. Note, many of these Republicans are precisely the ‘fidget spinners’ the TEA Party references as ‘Republican In Name Only’, well except TEA Party Express Glen Beck conducted a hostile takeover of.

In other words, if Progressive Democrats streamline Pence’s staff-cabinet positions, Progressive Republicans who overwhelmingly support Pence will 25th remove Trump from office

In the new administration, many Trump loyalists will have to go (bye bye, Sean, Jared, Ivanka, Kellyanne) but solid public servants can remain and serve alongside fresh faces eager to help President Pence after an angst-ridden period in American history.

Jared and Ivanka shouldn’t have been brought in to begin with, but the dissent of globalization, guilty until proven innocent, and expansionist foreign policy would be removed. Kinda makes one wonder about ‘criminal justice reform’…

A Pence presidency would invert current American politics, highlighting policies and ideas while downplaying personalities and showmanship. Republicans could start to shake off the remaining tremors from the roller coaster ride of 2017 in time to play defense in 2018 and earn a second term in 2020, as every president save one has done since the 1980s.

I rather doubt it:
1). Pence is a Progressive Republican who lacks the support of people who don’t benefit from globalization, guilty until proven innocent, and expansionist foreign policy that made up the populist sentiment that got Trump elected. As a result, traditional Democrat States aka blue-states who voted Trump won’t vote Pence.

Isn’t going to do him much good. Pence’s political war machine is no match against a Progressive Democrat’s political war machine as Clinton’s. He’ll lose like McCain and Romney did; in fact, chances are if they remove Trump from office; even Clinton could smash him.

3). The calculation being conveyed by the author would require Trump being removed from office takes the energy out of Anti-Trump by the 2020 election if Trump is removed prior to the 2018 mid-term cycle, and it’s banking on reconciliation in some form with anti-globalization, guilty until proven innocent, and expansionist foreign policy supporters getting shafted voting Pence for no better reason than ‘lesser of 2 evils’. I have my doubts. Chances are disenfranchised voters who see a difference without distinction between candidates as Pence results in an abstain protest vote akin to voting ‘None of the Above’.

I’m pretty sure given Progressive Democrats need Trump to rally their base, and Progressive Republicans want Trump’s anti-globalization, guilty until proven innocent, and expansionist foreign policy support to be purged or align with Progressive Republicans that chances are higher Trump is 1-term President. It ultimately depends on who benefits and how.